Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:41:10 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

   dear software. i know what i am doing. thank you :akko_angry2:

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:41:06 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca the info box is bad, yes. but it actually does what its suppose to do. scope always should either be the same as parent or more restrictive, never less, otherwise scopes would lose all meaning, since you could simply boost an FO scope in public.

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:41:08 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     i am seriously unhappy with this feature. mostly because it does nothing it (probably) aims to achieve. unless "followers only" is now "followers of parent post only", which, again, i would be seriously unhappy with. if i allow carelessly every follower, the reply will reach just any random person that can choose to do whatever they want with the information. it doesnt make any sense to restrict scope, what would make sense is an information box and maybe even confirmation button that no private information of the parent post has been shared

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:42:06 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca if anything, when you quite something, it should assume the same scope the parent has and not use this info box

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:46:52 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca you do quote someone elses posts tho no? otherwise this box wouldnt appear. and if you allow for quoting a private post in a public scope, you do actually leak the private post to the general public

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:46:53 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be by replying public i do not make the parent post visible. if that happens, that needs to be fixed. the only thing i am doing is making my own post, my own words, my own frickin copyrighted material public. people are careless, yes, but an info box would help. and people are careless with their followers too, as the auto-allow feature shows

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:46:55 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be i do not see how it is supposed to do what it is supposed to do, because "followers" are not the same from every viewpoint. and i could list a hundred situations where there is no need for restricting in the first place.

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:48:38 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca :blobcatgoogly: how to manage locked accounts in that case then? how to handle quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes? it isnt easy to solve what you ask for tbh

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:48:39 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be if it would restrict to my followers and the parents posts followers, that would be debatable. but as far as i know it does not. it just cuts of a thread.

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:52:37 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca it does make sense for replies too, since the OP is setting the initial scope. and yes, who gets to see your reply and who doesnt is an issue that has been discussed for a long time. but not restricting the scope isnt solving the actual issue imo

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:52:38 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be no i replied. it makes 100% sense for quotes but 0 for thread replies

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:53:44 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca it doesnt really solve the issue tho

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:53:45 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be yeah well it doesnt, thats why the option to use public makes sense (for replies without private information of the parent post)

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Friday, 04-Nov-2022 23:56:05 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca :mud_peek: sorry, ich halt schon die schnauze

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Saturday, 05-Nov-2022 00:00:26 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca hey, i didnt say its an issue that shouldnt be solved... dont put words into my mouth. all i'm saying is, that if we want to solve it, we should do it properly, ie including at least the followers of the OP if not everyone done the thread

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Saturday, 05-Nov-2022 00:00:28 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be i do not see how not solving the issue warrants a situation that doesnt solve the issue. it is a non-argument. an info box which educates users, which maybe even lets them check a box so that all liability is on the user, solves the problem insofar as it involves careless user behaviour. and wilful behaviour will always find a way, the only thing you can do is make it more difficult without restricting legitimate use (aka, a checkbock or whatever)

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Saturday, 05-Nov-2022 00:01:28 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be and maybe giving people a sense that all information is able to be public to begin with wouldnt be wrong in the first place

     Puniko ? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Saturday, 05-Nov-2022 00:05:22 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca on this point, i totally agree with you. the scopes kinda give a false sense of privacy imo

   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Saturday, 05-Nov-2022 00:17:05 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca ich glaub wir kommen hier nicht auf einen konsens. das problem ist, wenn du eine antwort in public machst, werden die folge antworten dann auch automatisch public sein, falls dies die person nicht selbst umstellt. damit übergehst du dann quasi den originalen scope des OPlers. es ist nunmal leider nicht einfach mit "lass mich public antworten" gelöst. darum meine ich, dass hier das problem richtig angegangen werden sollte, und nicht so ne workaround lösung benutzt werden sollte. und nein, dazu bräuchte es nicht nen neuen scope, das kann immer noch unter FO laufen, aber im kontext des parents
     
     ausserdem hast du die option public auch nicht "siehe warnmeldung" also ist das auch nicht eine lösung im hier und jetzt
     
     aber lassen wir das thema. ich verstehe deine punkte und stimme mit dir überrein, dass es gelöst werden muss. nur wie die lösung ausschauen soll, da scheinen wir uns uneinig zu sein. und tbh, hier zu diskutieren, wie und was anders laufen sollte löst das problem im ende ja auch nicht direkt
     
     sorry, jetzt halte ich wirklich die klappe ? tschuldingung, dass ich dir hier so gegenreden tue. ich mach das sonst sehr selten

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Saturday, 05-Nov-2022 00:17:06 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be is what you are saying that yes "restricting replies to my-followers-only" is bad and that some change in scope to include the other persons followers/thread participants should be there, but "restricting to my-followers-only" is currently the best alternative we have? in that case we agree on the first part, the only thing i am, as a person with exactly 113 followers many of which are alt-accounts, saying is that imo public is the best we currently have

   • Embed this notice
     ? temporarymaplefeli ? (feli@mk.paritybit.ca)'s status on Saturday, 05-Nov-2022 00:41:20 JST ? temporarymaplefeli ?

     in reply to

     • Puniko ?

     @puniko@mk.absturztau.be sorry dass ich das jetzt rauspicke aberund nein, dazu bräuchte es nicht nen neuen scope, das kann immer noch unter FO laufen, aber im kontext des parentsdoch braucht es (idealerweise, nicht technisch), weil man sonst jeden user dazu zwingt, ggf private Informationen entweder zu dm'en oder mit allen follower des parent posts zu teilen. das wäre dann genau in die andere Richtung restriktiv. wenn ich was schreibe, möchte ich die Möglichkeit haben, dass entweder auch oder nur meinen followern zugänglich zu machen - oder eben nur denen des parent posts/thread teilnehmern. wenn wir schon follower-only privatssphärefreundlich machen wollen. denn der scope hängt ja von der Anzahl der follower ab. auch followers-only kann theoretisch public sein (wenn jemand alle user als follower hat), und da man die follower ja nicht mal zwangsläufig einsehen kann, hat man keine Ahnung was der scope "followers-only des parent posts" eigentlich bedeutet. es muss zumindest die wahl bestehen, das Risiko des weiten "parent-post-FO" einzugehen oder den thread zu brechen. deswegen braucht es mehr scopes. imo idealerweise dm - own-FO (or circles, for private information of the replier) - parent-post-FO-only (for private information of the parent post) - parent-and-own-FO (no private information, to not break the thread) - public (unlisted/listed, wenn der parent public war kann auch die reply public bleiben wenn man das denn will). sonst entscheidet die Software wieder über die (gefühlte) privatssphäre des users aber halt andersherum.

     Puniko ? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Puniko ? (puniko@mk.absturztau.be)'s status on Saturday, 05-Nov-2022 00:42:27 JST Puniko ?

     in reply to

     @feli@mk.paritybit.ca fair